Just read a bunch of customer reviews on amazon a few months ago, poor build quality came up way too often. I went with the Sennheiser hd 555's, very happy.

I have Sennheiser also, I'm actually anti-Dre Beats (for the same reason a lot folks are anti-Apple: "cool" and "status symbols"), but if people want to buy em it's no worry to me. The Amazon statement is better than saying demo store models don't work (to me). We are brothers in Sennheiser - Hahaa.

But the iPod used to use a good quality DAC. With lossless material, it sounded OK. Not any more, unfortunately.

Oh yes, the iPod is a fine sounding device, but I was of the 'anything mass-market has to sound crap' group and kept that up till 2007 when I got an iPod touch 1G that overall, performed better with hard to drive earphones than my bought-on-a-headfi-recommendation Cowon D2.

Current iPods have so much resolution for every single earphone that the earphones may actually sound worse in some ways as they were made to sound good on players that dropped bass resolution and got naft distortion when the impedance dug too low.

The 4th gen iPod is incredible for noise floor, stereo separation, low Ω driving potential: everything. And with great EQ apps like EQu and Equalizer, it sounds damn fine. The only thing you can't do with an iPod is increase harmonic distortion if you like that 'warm' sound.

Oh well.

Agree with the news though I got worked up a bit in this thread: HTC's investing 300$ million into Beats isn't exactly Apple-centric news.

Agreed. I need accuracy, not fancy stuff. I've been listening to Trance/Progressive for a long time. The tracks, podcasts and so on are already mixed and mastered for clubs, CDs, radios, mp3s. They've gotten quite good at delivering a track at a certain "standard" so that it can be played in a variety of environments without sounding weird. Any DSP on top of it is unnecessary. That said I don't know what is in the iPad 2 but the sound quality through it is better than an iPhone, Mac and definitely better than my desktop PC with built-in audio. But it's not overdone or changed, just *better*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Which is simply an argument for purchasing audio equipment which is as accurate as possible. You get close to the intended music with a flat audio response with no added distortions. It's not hard to find portable audio equipment and headphones that are close enough to flat over 20-20,000 that there's really no need for anything else.

The concept that intentionally distorting the sound will somehow get it closer to the original is rather absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][

You're right that it's certainly not the exact same chain that was being used in the studio. The majority of big names mix through speakers/monitors, and in major studios those speakers and monitors usually have 15-18" woofers. You can feel the music, not just hear it through those kind of speakers. Headphones are only used a small amount of the time usually, the main mixing happens through speakers and monitors. That usually consists of a pair of nearfield monitors and a pair of larger main monitors. That's kind of hard to replicate in a home environment, unless somebody has a ton of money and a huge house with an acoustically designed room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleLover2

Yep. These damn DSPs always make the sound worse, not better. High Fidelity does not mean "sounds less like the original source". It means that it sounds more like the producer intended. DSPs are kind of like putting filters over your oil painting to make it look "better". Would a lenticular filter over the Mona Lisa make it look better because it is "3D"? How about a filter over a Van Gogh to get rid of those damn bush strokes? Don't like the artist's shade of blue? Put a filter over it to make it green instead. Even better, put a filter on that can be changed, like those cheesy digital photo special effects: make it sepia instead of colored! Next day, make it look like it was lit with fluorescent lighting, or sunlight, or candlelight.

Yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][

"Beats" seems like a huge gimmick and it certainly didn't help the HP Touchpad much in terms of sales. It's just hype and morons buy it just because some celebrities name is tied to it. These same people would probably buy Justin Beiber's new perfume too.

I read that the "Beats" circuitry adds some sort of limiter or multiband compressor to the output chain. If that's the case, then I for one wouldn't want any "Beats" audio on my computer or devices.

I also think that the Apple "sound enhancer" in Itunes sucks monkeyballs and I prefer to listen to music and audio without any additional enhancement.

I just don't see anyone over the age of 14 altering a decision to purchase an iPad or iPhone because some piece of junk Android device has teenage appealing ear buds. It is the same marketing strategy used before such as ads that show Droids are used by space age storm troopers. That simply didn't work. In fact if this is HTC's answer to taking on Apple it is either a sign of desperation or a total lack of reality or perhaps both. They may as well offer free plastic models of Darth Vader with every purchase.

Care to elaborate on your conclusion? Stats, studies, findings or is this just a blatant knock against anything anti-apple?

I don't get it. While he's obviously speculating about IQ stats, how is taking a shot at people who buy Beats headphones the same as taking a shot at people or anything that is anti-Apple? Until HTC bought their stake in Beats Electronics, Beats wasn't in competition with Apple. In fact, you can buy Beats headphones from Apple.

I don't get it. While he's obviously speculating about IQ stats, how is taking a shot at people who buy Beats headphones the same as taking a shot at people or anything that is anti-Apple? Until HTC bought their stake in Beats Electronics, Beats wasn't in competition with Apple. In fact, you can buy Beats headphones from Apple.

Who cares?

Bottom line is that HTC just spent $300 M on the belief that people are more wiling to buy a phone if HTC can convince them that a distorted audio signal is 'high fidelity' audio.

While I don't doubt that HTC can convince some people that distorting the audio is somehow better (PT Barnum was right), I just don't see that many people willing to shell out money for a phone in th belief that it will be an experience fit for an audiophile. The people who care that much about sound quality know better. The people who don't know better aren't likely to base their purchasing decision on it.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

To be fair we should remember that HTC isn't competing with Apple, not really. HTC is competing with Samsung, Moto, S-E and LG. They're competing for Android buyers, and most of us aren't really a very good judge of what might or might not interest an android buyer - because we would simply never buy android. Maybe Beats-Audio-TM will work, I guess it can't do worse than a weather app that plays rain sounds to tell you that it's raining.

Who cares about what exactly? Are you referring to my comment about the speculation of IQ stats or the comment that you can buy Beats headphones from Apple's website? I suspect that you were referring to the latter. While that really wasn't the point of my entire comment, I'll answer you. The truth is I don't know who cares. I don't because I'm not going to buy Beats headphones. I must assume that if Apple is continuing to list them for sale that some people actually care though. And the average IQ score of those people? Who knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Bottom line is that HTC just spent $300 M on the belief that people are more wiling to buy a phone if HTC can convince them that a distorted audio signal is 'high fidelity' audio.

You clearly missed the whole point of my comment. My reply was to theoneaboveall, who implied that bedouin's comment, which speculated about the IQ scores of those people who bought Beats headphones, was a comment that was just trying to take a shot at something that was anti-Apple. I thought I made my point quite clear, but here it is again. How is criticizing people who like Beats headphones the same as criticizing something that is anti-Apple? By that logic, people who buy Beats headphones are doing something anti-Apple. That makes no sense. Beats Electronics and Apple are not in competition with one another. Beats Electronics makes products that are considered an accessory to Apple's products.

To sum it up:
Beats Electronics and Apple are not competitors. Beats headphones, no matter what you think about their quality as a product, are an accessory to Apple's products. Therefore, insinuating that saying something negative about Beats is also saying something to defend Apple or to attack something anti-Apple just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

While I don't doubt that HTC can convince some people that distorting the audio is somehow better (PT Barnum was right), I just don't see that many people willing to shell out money for a phone in th belief that it will be an experience fit for an audiophile. The people who care that much about sound quality know better. The people who don't know better aren't likely to base their purchasing decision on it.

While I agree with the points you made, it has nothing to do with the point of my reply to theoneaboveall. While I read comments on the subject, I didn't reply to any because I didn't feel I had anything to add on the subject because it had already been said. Beats headphones and the technology they license for electronics are not quality products in my opinion. I wouldn't buy their products. Even if I would, I wouldn't buy an HTC phone because it had their technology or earbuds. I would simply buy the phone I wanted and buy the earphones separately. Again, I agree with your points, but they had nothing to do with my comment. And PT Barnum? Who the heck is that?